Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice

Transcription

1 Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business Lee Kong Chian School of Business Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice Donald L. FERRIN Singapore Management University, Kurt T. DIRKS State University of New York at Buffalo Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Leadership Studies Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons Citation FERRIN, Donald L. and DIRKS, Kurt T.. Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. (2002). Journal of Applied Psychology. 87, (4), Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business. Available at: This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please

2 Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002 August, 87 (4), Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2002, Vol. 87, No. 4, /02/$5.00 DOI: // Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice Kurt T. Dirks Washington University in St. Louis Donald L. Ferrin State University of New York at Buffalo In this study, the authors examined the findings and implications of the research on trust in leadership that has been conducted during the past 4 decades. First, the study provides estimates of the primary relationships between trust in leadership and key outcomes, antecedents, and correlates (k 106). Second, the study explores how specifying the construct with alternative leadership referents (direct leaders vs. organizational leadership) and definitions (types of trust) results in systematically different relationships between trust in leadership and outcomes and antecedents. Direct leaders (e.g., supervisors) appear to be a particularly important referent of trust. Last, a theoretical framework is offered to provide parsimony to the expansive literature and to clarify the different perspectives on the construct of trust in leadership and its operation. The significance of trust in leadership has been recognized by researchers for at least four decades, with early exploration in books (e.g., Argyris, 1962; Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1967) and empirical articles (e.g., Mellinger, 1959; Read, 1962). Over this period of time, the trust that individuals have in their leaders has been an important concept in applied psychology and related disciplines. For instance, it is a key concept in several leadership theories: Transformational and charismatic leaders build trust in their followers (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990); employees perceptions that leaders have attributes that promote trust may be important for leader effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994); and trust is an element of leader member exchange theory (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999) and the consideration dimension of leader behavior (Fleishman & Harris, 1962). The importance of trust in leadership has also been emphasized in numerous other literatures across multiple disciplines. Published articles that include the concept can be found in the literatures on job attitudes, teams, communication, justice, psychological contracts, organizational relationships, and conflict management, and across the disciplines of organizational psychology, management, public administration, organizational communication, and education, among others. More recently, trust has emerged as a research theme in its own right. The rise in interest is evidenced by special issues of journals devoted to the topic of trust (Kramer & Isen, Kurt T. Dirks, John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University in St. Louis; Donald L. Ferrin, Department of Organization and Human Resources, State University of New York at Buffalo. We gratefully acknowledge the comments provided by Fred Oswald, Daniel Skarlicki, Linn Van Dyne, and Fran Yammarino on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kurt T. Dirks, Washington University in St. Louis, John M. Olin School of Business, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri dirks@olin.wustl.edu 1994; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and edited books (Gambetta, 1988; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Lane & Bachmann, 1998), as well as a growing number of individual articles. As Kramer (1999) noted, trust is moving from bit player to center stage in contemporary organizational theory and research (p. 594). Researchers have clearly demonstrated significant and growing interest in the concept, but several key issues have been overlooked. First, there has been no attempt to cumulate and assess the empirical research on trust in leadership that is spread across several decades and numerous literatures. As a result, it is unclear what empirical research has uncovered about the relationships between trust and other concepts. For instance, scholarly views have ranged from trust being a variable of very substantial importance (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Kramer, 1999) to having little if any impact (Williamson, 1993). Nor has there been a summary of how trust is related to potential antecedents. In this study, we report a meta-analysis that quantitatively summarizes and evaluates the primary relationships between trust in leadership and 23 constructs. Although many constructs in applied psychology have benefited from a meta-analytic review, no such synthesis has been applied to the literature on trust in leadership. A second issue is that a diversity in construct focus has arisen in the literature. In examining the relationship of trust with other constructs, researchers have specified the construct with different leadership referents and with a focus on different operational definitions of trust. At present, it is unclear whether specifying the construct in alternative ways results in different findings and, if so, how. For example, some scholars have focused on trust in a direct leader (e.g., supervisor), whereas others have focused on trust in organizational leadership (e.g., senior leadership). We suggest that trust in these two different leadership referents will show systematically different relationships with antecedents and work outcomes (i.e., the primary relationships will differ). This issue is important not only theoretically but also practically, as it may provide guidance on whether organizations should focus resources on establishing trust in its supervisors or in its senior leadership. 611

3 612 DIRKS AND FERRIN We also explore whether choosing to a focus on one particular operational definition of trust versus another may result in different findings. Last, because scholars from different literatures have used and adapted the concept, different theoretical perspectives have arisen. We offer a tentative framework describing two distinct theoretical perspectives and use it to address the issues described above. Specifically, the framework is used to establish the theoretical linkages between trust in leadership and other constructs, and to help specify why trust in leadership might show different relationships with other constructs depending on the referent of leadership or the definition of trust. Although data are not yet available to conduct comprehensive tests of the theoretical framework through meta-analysis, the framework offers parsimony to the expansive literature on trust in leadership and provides theoretical leverage for addressing the above issues and for conducting future research. In sum, in this study we attempt to quantitatively review the primary relationships between trust in leadership and other constructs, explore the implications of specifying the construct in different ways, and provide theoretical parsimony to the literature base. These issues are important to address from a theoretical standpoint because they limit the ability of scholars to draw on, and advance, existing research on trust in leadership. The issues are also relevant for practitioners, because trust in leadership is a foundation of several practices, such as leadership development programs (e.g., Peterson & Hicks, 1996). Concept Definition and Theoretical Framework Rousseau et al. (1998) proposed the following definition of trust as it has been conceptualized and studied across numerous disciplines: a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (p. 395). We use this conceptual definition in our analysis, recognizing that researchers have operationalized it in different ways and for different types of leadership referents (e.g., ranging from direct leader to organizational leadership). Following Yukl and Van Fleet (1992), we do not distinguish between leaders and managers because the terms are often used interchangeably in the literature. Scholars have offered different explanations about the processes through which trust forms, the processes through which trust affects workplace outcomes, and the nature of the construct itself. To address this theoretical diversity, we distinguish between two qualitatively different theoretical perspectives of trust in leadership that appear in the literature and use these as a framework for the article. One perspective focuses on the nature of the leader follower relationship (or more precisely, how the follower understands the nature of the relationship). For instance, some researchers describe trust in leadership as operating according to a social exchange process (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Followers see the relationship with their leader as beyond the standard economic contract such that the parties operate on the basis of trust, goodwill, and the perception of mutual obligations (Blau, 1964). The exchange denotes a highquality relationship, and issues of care and consideration in the relationship are central. Researchers have used this perspective in describing how trust in leader follower relationships elicits citizenship behavior (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), in some research on the operation of transformational leadership and trust (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999), and in literature on leader member exchange relationships (e.g., Schriesheim et al., 1999). Given the emphasis on relational issues, we refer to this perspective as the relationship-based perspective. A second perspective focuses on the perception of the leader s character and how it influences a follower s sense of vulnerability in a hierarchical relationship (e.g., Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). According to this perspective, trust-related concerns about a leader s character are important because the leader may have authority to make decisions that have a significant impact on a follower and the follower s ability to achieve his or her goals (e.g., promotions, pay, work assignments, layoffs). This perspective implies that followers attempt to draw inferences about the leader s characteristics such as integrity, dependability, fairness, and ability and that these inferences have consequences for work behavior and attitudes. Examples of research using this perspective include models of trust based on characteristics of the trustee (Mayer et al., 1995), research on perceptions of supervisor characteristics (e.g., Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Oldham, 1975), and research on some forms of leader behavior (Jones, James, & Bruni, 1975). We refer to this perspective as the character-based perspective. In both of the two perspectives, trust is a belief or perception held by the follower and is measured accordingly; it is not a property of the relationship or the leader per se. We use these theoretical perspectives as a framework in the following ways: First, we summarize how the perspectives have been and can be used to explain bivariate relationships between trust in leadership and its antecedents and consequences. Second, we develop hypotheses about how the two different theories imply different bivariate relationships, on the basis of the referent of trust and the definition of trust used, and test those hypotheses through meta-analytic procedures (moderator analyses). Last, we discuss how the two perspectives may be used to direct future research. Primary Relationships With Other Variables This section provides a review and integration of the relationships between trust in leadership and other key constructs. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical positioning of the constructs, including the unmeasured theoretical processes expected to mediate the relationships. We have classified variables as potential antecedents, consequences, or correlates according to how researchers have treated them theoretically. We caution, however, that the causal connections are empirically tenuous at present because most studies used cross-sectional research designs. As discussed in a later section, this caution is particularly warranted with the variables labeled as antecedents. The framework and subsequent discussion include only those variables for which sufficient data were available for the meta-analysis. In that sense, the following discussion and framework are not exhaustive of all variables that have been associated with trust. Relationships With Behavioral, Performance, and Attitudinal Outcomes Clearly, one reason that scholars and practitioners are interested in trust is their belief that it has a significant impact on a variety of

4 TRUST IN LEADERSHIP META-ANALYSIS 613 Figure 1. Framework for trust in leadership. Concepts in italics represent processes and concepts that are parts of the theoretical model but were not examined empirically because of insufficient data. A minus sign indicates a negative relationship with trust. OCBs organizational citizenship behaviors. outcomes relevant to organizations. At present, however, there is variation in the opinions of scholars (see, e.g., Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Kramer, 1999; Williamson, 1993). A narrative review of the consequences of trust in leaders and other referents was not able to draw conclusive findings for behavioral and performance variables, although it did find some consistent evidence of a relationship with attitudinal variables (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). In short, existing research has not provided a clear picture. Consequently, one of our goals in the present meta-analysis is to develop insight, based on the sum of previous empirical research, regarding the relationships between trust in leadership and key outcomes. A second goal is to examine the effects of trust across different outcome variables to better understand where trust is likely to have its largest or smallest impacts. Behavioral and performance outcomes. The two theoretical perspectives outlined earlier describe two different mechanisms by which trust might affect behavior and performance. The characterbased perspective focuses on how perceptions of the leader s character affect a follower s vulnerability in a hierarchical relationship. Specifically, because leaders have authority to make decisions that have a significant impact on the follower (e.g., promotions, pay, work assignments, layoffs), perceptions about the trustworthiness of the leader become important. Drawing on this idea, Mayer et al. (1995) provided a model proposing that when followers believe their leaders have integrity, capability or benevolence, they will be more comfortable engaging in behaviors that put them at risk (e.g., sharing sensitive information). For example, Mayer and Gavin (1999) suggested that when employees believe their leader cannot be trusted (e.g., because the leader is perceived not to have integrity) they will divert energy toward covering their backs, which detracts from their work performance. In contrast, the relationship-based perspective is based on principles of social exchange and deals with employees willingness to reciprocate care and consideration that a leader may express in a relationship. That is, individuals who feel that their leader has, or will, demonstrate care and consideration will reciprocate this sentiment in the form of desired behaviors. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) drew on this logic, suggesting that a social exchange relationship encourages individuals to spend more time on required tasks and be willing to go above and beyond their job role. Both theoretical perspectives suggest that trust may result in higher performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), but they reach this end by distinct, and potentially complementary, routes. Attitudes and intentions. Trust is also linked to a number of attitudinal outcomes, particularly organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Rich (1997) recognized that managers are responsible for many duties that have a major effect on employees job satisfaction, such as performance evaluations, guidance and assistance with job responsibilities, and training. Using the logic described in the prior section regarding the leader s character, individuals are likely to feel safer and more positive about the manager making these decisions when they believe the leader is trustworthy. In contrast, having a low level of trust in a leader is likely to be psychologically distressing when the leader has power over important aspects of one s job, and this distress is likely to affect one s attitudes about the workplace. The implication of this idea is that trust in leadership should be associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, higher organizational commitment, and lower intention of quitting. For instance, when individuals do not trust their leaders, they are more likely to consider quitting, because they may be concerned about decisions that the leaders might make (owing to perceptions of lack of integrity, fairness, honesty, or competence) and not want to put themselves at risk to the leader. Last, we expect trust to affect two additional variables that are important for effective leadership: commitment to decisions made by or goals set by the leader and belief in the accuracy of information provided by the leader. Because trust involves beliefs about honesty, integrity, and the extent to which a leader will take advantage of the employee, it is likely to affect the extent to which individuals are willing to believe the accuracy of information they

5 614 DIRKS AND FERRIN receive from that individual. 1 In addition, believing that a leader is not honest, does not have integrity, and may take advantage of a follower is likely to make one unwilling to commit to the goals set by a leader, for fear of putting oneself at risk. Hypothesis 1a: Trust in leadership will be positively related to job performance, OCBs, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, goal commitment, and belief in information and will be negatively related to intention to quit. Although prior research has posited a positive impact on the variables cited above, it has not explored the relative magnitude of the relationships. We suggest that the relationship will be greatest with those variables that are psychologically proximal to trust, such as work-related attitudes. Behavioral and performance outcomes are usually a function of numerous other contextual determinants, and hence the relationships are likely to be smaller. We would, however, expect trust in leadership to have a stronger impact on OCBs than on job performance. Similar to arguments advanced by other researchers, our view is that OCBs are discretionary behaviors, are less constrained by abilities and work processes than job performance, and hence are likely to be more strongly affected by attitudinal variables such as trust (Organ & Ryan, 1995). For example, when one does not trust the leader, one is more likely to avoid going the extra mile than to reduce performance of required tasks. Hypothesis 1b: Trust in leader will have the largest correlations with job attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), the second largest with OCBs, and the smallest with job performance. Relationships With Leader Actions and Other Potential Antecedents To date, there has been no comprehensive review of the evidence concerning potential antecedents of trust. To facilitate our review, we classified potential antecedent variables into three categories: leader actions and practices, attributes of the follower, and attributes of the leader follower relationship. These categories reflect different sources of effects. Leader actions and practices. According to the two perspectives on trust, individuals observe leaders actions and draw inferences about the nature of the relationship with the leader (relationship-based perspective) and/or the character of the leader (character-based perspective). Among theories of leadership, trust has perhaps been most frequently cited in the literature on transformational leadership. According to several scholars, transformational leaders engage in actions that gain the trust of their followers and that in turn result in desirable outcomes (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990). Pillai et al. (1999) suggested that transformational leaders may operate by establishing a social exchange relationship with followers. For instance, transformational leaders may build trust by demonstrating individualized concern and respect for followers (Jung & Avolio, 2000). In contrast, transactional leaders are said to focus more effort on ensuring that employees are rewarded fairly (contingent reward) and that followers recognize that they will fulfill the work contract. In sum, transformational leadership behaviors operate partially because of care and concern perceived in the relationship; transactional leaders seem to put less emphasis on the relationship and more emphasis on ensuring that they are seen as fair, dependable, and having integrity (character-based issues). Trust is also frequently associated with the perceived fairness of leadership actions. Specifically, employees trust in their leaders will be influenced by the level of perceived fairness or justice in the organizational practices or decisions, because the practices are likely to be seen as a signal of the nature of the relationship with the leader or the character of the leader. Researchers describe three types of justice that are relevant: distributive justice, which involves the allocation of outcomes; procedural justice, which deals with the processes that lead to decision outcomes; and interactional justice, the interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are enacted. Some scholars (Brockner & Siegel, 1996; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) have used the group value model to suggest that procedural justice is a source of trust because it demonstrates respect for the employee and a valuation of the relationship, whereas others might suggest that it could be interpreted as an indicator of the leader s tendency to be fair. In contrast, scholars have suggested that distributive justice does not signal anything about the exchange relationship but simply follows standard norms. One might propose that distributive justice does, however, signal the fairness and integrity of a leader, and hence the character-based perspective would be relevant. Although these researchers did not discuss interactional justice specifically, we suggest that it would send a strong signal about the nature of the relationship (relationship-based perspective) because it involves the degree of respect with which the leader treats the follower. Participative decision making (PDM) may send a message that the leader enacting the program has confidence in, and concern and respect for, the subordinate; it may also affect followers overall perceptions about the character of the leader (e.g., fairness). The literature on psychological contracts suggests that unmet expectations ( breaches ; e.g., pay raises or promotions promised but not given) will decrease trust in leaders (Robinson, 1996). Unmet expectations are likely to influence followers trust by affecting the extent to which the leader is perceived to be dependable, to be honest, or to have integrity. Last, perceived organizational support involves an exchange relationship between individuals and the organization, where the individuals believe that the organization cares about their well-being. In sum, PDM may operate through either the relationship-based or the character-based perspective, unmet expectations are likely to operate through the characterbased perspective, and perceived organizational support is likely to operate through the relationship-based perspective. 1 As pointed out by a reviewer, the literature is unclear as to whether belief in information is a component of trust rather than a distinct construct. As part of the character-based perspective, perceiving that the leader is honest and in general tells the truth may be a component of trust. The construct belief in accuracy of information is different yet not entirely distinct, in that it refers to whether one perceives that the information in a particular context or circumstance is accurate. Fulk, Brief, and Barr (1985), for instance, examined whether one s trust in a leader affects the extent to which information in a performance appraisal is accurate. As we discuss later, this construct is one of several in which the conceptual and empirical distinctions between trust and another construct are not unambiguous.

6 TRUST IN LEADERSHIP META-ANALYSIS 615 In addition to the question of whether these variables influence trust, we are also interested in the magnitude of the effects. At present, research has not explored which practices have the strongest effect on trust. It is possible, for example, that some practices have stronger relationships with trust than others because of the different processes involved in the effect (relationship-based vs. character-based). Last, it is unclear how the magnitudes of leadership practices compare to other potential determinants such as the ones discussed below. Attributes of the follower. Rotter (1967) and others have recognized that individuals vary in the extent to which they trust others in general. The trait is often referred to as propensity to trust and is sometimes hypothesized to influence individuals trust in specific individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. For instance, this propensity might affect how individuals initially perceive and interact with their leaders, which might influence the ultimate level of trust in the relationship. Alternatively, this propensity might have little or no effect on trust in specific partners because of the unique experiences in each relationship that overwhelm the effects of the trait. According to McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998), researchers have experienced mixed results when using dispositional trust to predict interpersonal trust. Attributes of the relationship. The length of a relationship between individuals may affect the level of trust between them. For example, the level of trust may be greater in a relationship of long duration than in a relationship of short duration owing to the level of knowledge and familiarity acquired. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) suggested that deeper levels of trust develop over time, largely as a function of the parties having a history of interaction. Length of a relationship is one proxy for the extent of interaction. As a counterpoint, an individual may over time recognize that trust in a leader is not warranted. In sum, it is unclear whether length in relationship will be related to trust in leadership. Hypothesis 2: Trust in leadership will be positively related to transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, interactional justice, transactional leadership, procedural justice, PDM, distributive justice, propensity to trust, and length of relationship and will be negatively related to unmet expectations. Correlates of Trust in Leadership We have classified satisfaction with leader and leader member exchange (LMX) as correlates of trust in leadership. Trust in leadership and satisfaction with leader are conceptually similar because they both reflect an attitude or assessment that individuals hold about the same referent: the leader. Given the similarity, we expect the two variables to covary at a high level with no distinct direction of causality. The relationship between trust and LMX is particularly complex. Some research has conceptually or empirically separated LMX from trust in leadership (e.g., Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Lagace, 1987); other studies have treated it as a subdimension of LMX (for a review, see Schriesheim et al., 1999). Brower, Schoorman, and Tan (2000) suggest that LMX comprises two trust constructs that do necessarily have to be balanced or reciprocated: the leader s trust in subordinate and the subordinate s trust in leader. Given the complex relationship that remains a point of debate, we treat trust in leadership as a correlate of follower ratings of the LMX construct and meta-analyze data from those studies that treat it as a construct distinct from LMX. Hypothesis 3: Trust in leadership will be positively related to satisfaction with leader and LMX. Construct Issues: Different Referents and Definitions of Trust in Leadership Past research has demonstrated a diversity in construct focus. In this section, we examine two issues regarding the construct of trust in leadership. As suggested by Clark and Payne (1997), the construct of trust has two independent facets: the referent of the trust in leadership and the definition of trust in leadership. In other words, in responding to a survey, the follower is asked to assess a particular referent on a particular dimension. We use the theoretical framework described earlier to examine how a focus on a particular referent or a particular definition of trust affects the primary relationships between trust and other variables. We discuss hypotheses only for those relationships for which we have both sufficient data and a theoretical rationale. Referent of Trust Most studies examining trust in leadership have focused on one of two referents: the direct leader (e.g., supervisor, work group leader) or the organizational leadership (e.g., executive leadership team, collective set of leaders). Research from political and organizational psychology suggests that individuals do distinguish between individuals and collectives or systems of authority in making assessments (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Lind & Tyler, 1988). To date, however, there has been little research directed at understanding the distinction that individuals make between different leadership referents of trust, and the implications of these distinctions. According to social exchange principles, the relationship-based perspective implies that followers will reciprocate toward the other party in the relationship. For example, trust in direct leader should be associated with reciprocation primarily aimed at that referent, as opposed to organizational leadership. Research reviewed by Bass (1990, pp ) indicated that direct leaders tend to perform supervisory activities, such as managing performance and day-today activities on the job. In contrast, organizational leaders perform more strategic functions, such as the allocation of resources to departments, human resource practices of the firm, and the communication goals of the organization. Given the distinction in the roles of the different leadership referents, reciprocating trust in a direct leader would tend to involve job-related outcomes such as increasing job performance, engaging in OCBs, and having higher levels of job satisfaction. For instance, individuals might give extra time to fulfill supervisor requests or may engage in helping behavior such as staying late to help a supervisor or coworker because of a social exchange process involving a supervisor (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). In contrast, trust in organizational leadership may involve reciprocating to that referent in the form of organization-level commodities such as organizational commitment. Last, we suggest that for intention to quit, both referents will

7 616 DIRKS AND FERRIN be of concern to the individual, because this decision may involve concerns about job-related factors and organizational factors. Hypothesis 4: Trust in direct leaders will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction, OCB altruism, and job performance than trust in organizational leadership; trust in organizational leadership will have a stronger relationship with organizational commitment. The relationship between trust and some antecedents may also vary based on the referent. Leadership actions are seen as reflecting leadership characteristics (character-based theory) or taken as signals about the nature of the relationship (relationship-based theory). At present, little research has addressed how subordinates attribute responsibility for leadership actions and decisions. For some actions, the referent should be clear to the subordinate. Interactional fairness behaviors would be difficult to attribute to any party other than the direct leader; that is, interpersonal treatment is likely to be perceived to be under the control of that individual (rather than due to organizational policies). Likewise, the relationship-based theory would suggest that perceived organizational support is related to trust in organizational leadership, as individuals reciprocate toward an organization-level referent (Settoon et al., 1996). For other actions, the appropriate referent may be less clear because the practice may often be developed on a systemwide basis by organizational leadership but ultimately implemented or enacted by direct leaders. Procedural fairness and PDM often fall within this domain (see, e.g., Bobocel & Holmvall, 2001). Although trust in both types of leaders will be significantly affected, we suggest that on average, subordinates will overattribute actions to direct leaders implementing the procedures. Attribution theory provides two bases for this prediction. First, the fundamental attribution error (the bias toward attributing behavior to person rather than situation) implies that subordinates will tend to attribute a direct leader s implementation of the policy to his or her personal character. Second, procedures tend to cause the direct leader to behave in a manner that is consistent over time and across subordinates. Attribution theory principles of high consistency (similar treatment by leader over time) and low distinctiveness (similar treatment across employees) imply that individuals will attribute the actions to the character of the direct leader. Furthermore, in many cases, these attributions may be veridical (i.e., the direct leader in fact initiated the practices without guidance from organizational leadership). Hypothesis 5: Interactional justice, procedural justice, and PDM will have a stronger relationship with trust in direct leaders than with trust in organizational leadership. Perceived organizational support will have a stronger relationship with trust in organizational leadership. Definition of Trust Although most definitions of trust seem to have a common conceptual core (Rousseau et al., 1998), individual researchers have used different operational definitions, which has resulted in the measurement of potentially different definitions of trust. These potential differences have been recognized by scholars, suggesting that trust comprises multiple dimensions (e.g., Clark & Payne, 1997; Cook & Wall, 1980; McAllister, 1995). McAllister (1995) suggested that interpersonal trust can be categorized into two different dimensions: cognitive and affective. Cognitive forms of trust reflect issues such as the reliability, integrity, honesty, and fairness of a referent. Affective forms of trust reflect a special relationship with the referent that may cause the referent to demonstrate concern about one s welfare. Other definitions have implicitly combined these two dimensions into an overall measure of trust which we consider to be a combination of affective and cognitive forms or have implicitly or explicitly focused on one of them. Our analysis uses this framework (cognitive, affective, and overall) for recognizing potential distinctions between definitions because it captures existing differences between definitions in a parsimonious manner. 2 It is unclear whether these distinctions provide leverage for understanding how trust is created and how it operates. On one hand, distinctions between the definitions might not be meaningful, because all of the definitions may tap the same construct. On the other hand, the measures may be tapping somewhat different aspects of trust, each of which has a potentially unique relationship with other constructs. To date, research has provided almost no evidence on the implications of using alternative definitions. We suggest that alternative operational definitions of trust result in relationships of different magnitude with other variables because they are associated with different theoretical processes (relationship-based or character-based theory). Specifically, the character-based perspective seems to be logically associated with cognitive definitions of trust, the relationship-based perspective is logically associated with affective definitions, and both perspectives are likely to be relevant to some degree for overall definitions of trust. For example, cognitive items such as I believe management has high integrity and [My leader] is not always honest and truthful (Robinson, 1996) capture perceptions about the leader s character that would create concerns about being vulnerable to him or her. In contrast, affective items such as I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional investments in our working relationships and If I shared my problems with [my leader] I know he would respond constructively and caringly (McAllister, 1995) are likely to be indicators of a relationship that will operate beyond the standard economic contract and that involves the exchange of socioemotional benefits. The implications of these differences are discussed in the following two paragraphs. In the meta-analysis, we analyze the different relationships related to overall versus cognitive trust. We focus on these two types because we found that nearly all of the studies included in the meta-analysis used one of these two; there is presently insufficient data to directly examine affective trust. We begin with differential relationships with outcomes. The assumption that cognitive operationalizations are primarily associated with and operate by means of the character-based theory, affective definitions are primarily associated with and operate by 2 A second distinction found in the literature is whether trust is a belief expectation or a behavioral intention (Mayer & Davis, 1999). Although empirical research using the latter definition appears to be growing, our review found that almost all of the empirical research on trust in leadership to date has used the former. Consequently, trust as a belief expectation is our focus. We did, however, include both of the definitions in our coding scheme.

8 TRUST IN LEADERSHIP META-ANALYSIS 617 means of the relationship-based theory, and overall definitions operate by means of both mechanisms (albeit to a lesser degree than either pure form would) provides the basis for making predictions about different relationships between outcome variables and alternative operationalizations of trust. We draw on our earlier theorizing for the predictions. As suggested earlier, one might argue that OCBs and job performance may be a function of social exchange (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) and perhaps also concerns over vulnerability associated with character-based perspective (Mayer & Gavin, 1999). In addition, the correlate LMX involves an evaluation of the relationship and is likely to involve affective elements. Consequently, we would expect these variables to have larger relationships with overall definitions of trust (involving the operation of both perspectives) than with cognitive trust alone. In contrast, job attitudes may be largely affected by concerns about dependability, honesty, fairness, and competence of the leader (as opposed to reciprocation of care). As discussed earlier, concerns about the leader may have a large impact on how individuals experience their workplace, as is the case for workplace attitudes such as job satisfaction. Hypothesis 6: OCBs, job performance, and LMX will have a stronger relationship with overall trust than cognitive trust; job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit will have a stronger relationship with cognitive trust. Regarding the antecedents, an individual may perceive some leadership actions as reflecting or signaling the leader s character and intentions and may perceive other actions as reflecting or signaling the type of relationship they have with the leader. Following our earlier theorizing, although distributive justice likely does not signal the nature of the relationship, it may signal the tendency of a leader to be generally fair and act with integrity. In contrast, interactional justice may signal respect and caring in the relationship. The relationship for procedural justice is unclear: according to the group value model, procedural fairness demonstrates respect for the employee and a valuation of the relationship (Brockner & Siegel, 1996); procedural justice may also, however, signal that the leader is generally fair and acts with integrity as a matter of principle. Hypothesis 7: Distributive justice will have a stronger relationship with cognitive trust than overall trust; interactional justice will have a stronger relationship with overall trust. Identification of Studies Method We used several procedures to ensure that we had included existing studies. First, we searched several electronic indexes using the keyword trust: PsycINFO ( ), SocioFile ( ), ABI/Inform ( ), and Dissertation Abstracts ( ). The search identified over 15,500 studies that were reviewed for consideration (there was some redundancy between databases). Second, we examined the reference sections of books and articles that provided a narrative review of the trust literature (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Kramer, 1999; McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992) or other literatures that might include trust. Third, we manually searched for studies in the following journals from 1980 to the present: Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Group and Organization Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Personnel Psychology. Fourth, we gathered unpublished research by contacting approximately 90 researchers who were considered likely to have relevant data. Unpublished studies were included to minimize publication bias (Rosenthal, 1979). We used a number of initial criteria to determine whether a study was to be included in the meta-analyses. The study had to include data on a construct specifically termed trust that we deemed to be used in a manner consistent with Rousseau et al. s (1998) cross-disciplinary definition (we later examine potential differences among operationalizations using the moderator analysis). We did not include studies that operationalized trust as a behavior, because other scholars have noted that the definition of trust as a behavior is problematic (see, e.g., Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). The referent of trust had to be a leader or leadership group; we did not examine individuals trust in peers or subordinates. Studies had to report the minimum statistics necessary for conducting the meta-analyses, such as zero-order correlation (partial correlations are not appropriate) or the equivalent, and the sample size. For cases in which such data were not reported, we attempted to contact the authors and obtain the information, where feasible. Last, the analysis was at the individual level; data at other levels of analysis were not included. To make the analysis more tractable and the estimates more stable, we conducted an analysis for only those variables for which there were at least five independent samples for the primary analysis. Coding Effect sizes. Most studies reported effect size data in terms of a Pearson correlation coefficient, r. Studies that reported other metrics (e.g., F, d) were converted to r by using the appropriate formulas. To preserve the independence of samples, for each relationship studied only one effect size was included from each sample. When a study reported data for multiple, independent samples, those samples were included separately in the analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Variables. Consistent with most recent empirical research, we used only data collected with non-self-report measures of job performance (e.g., rating by supervisor, or objective measures such as sales volume) and OCBs. The use of non-self-report measures should have prevented effect size inflation due to common source variance. For job satisfaction and transformational leadership, some studies reported the data as a global variable whereas others reported it as a facet variable. Consistent with other meta-analyses, (e.g., Organ & Ryan, 1995), for studies that used facet variables, we applied the appropriate formulas (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) to compute a single effect size. For example, if a study reported the effect sizes for transformational leadership components behaviors, we used the formula r xy /sqrt[n n(n 1)r yy ] to combine the data into a single correlation. The Spearman Brown formula was then used to compute the reliability by using the reliability estimates of the components. Referents and definition of trust. The studies were coded for the two moderator variables: referent and definition. Referent was coded into two categories: direct leader (e.g., supervisor, work group leader) and organizational leadership (e.g., executive leadership, collective set of leaders). To determine which category a study fit, we examined the items it used to measure trust. Definition was coded into four categories: affective trust, cognitive trust, willingness to be vulnerable, and overall trust. The items in each scale were examined and coded according to the definitions reported in the Appendix. A number of studies used an existing measure without reporting the items; in those cases we referred to the original source. To be coded as one of the specific definitions (affective, cognitive, or willingness), at least 75% of the items in a scale had to represent a single dimension. If less than 75% of the items represented a single dimension, the scale was classified as

9 618 DIRKS AND FERRIN overall trust. Hence, overall trust scales were frequently a composite. We chose 75% as the cutoff because it represented the midpoint between an exact combination of two dimensions (50%) and a pure set of items from a single dimension (100%). We wanted to set the cutoff value high enough that a measure could be considered to represent a single definition of trust without making the standard unreasonably difficult to attain. Clearly, researchers applying a different set of principles might set the cutoff level at a different value. Both authors coded the statistics (sample size, effect size, reliability, etc.) and moderator variables for each study included in the analysis. During the first round of coding, interrater agreement on the referent variable was.93 (kappa.85) and on the definition variable was.72 (kappa.41). The decision rules for definition were revised to be more precise, and the studies were subsequently recoded. During the second round of coding of the definition variable, agreement was.97 (kappa.95). Existing cases of disagreement were resolved by discussion. Meta-Analytic Procedures Computations for the overall meta-analysis and subsequent analyses were performed using Johnson s (1993) DSTAT computer program, which applies the Hedges and Olkin (1985) approach. We computed the samplesize-weighted mean of each set of correlations and the corresponding confidence intervals. Following the recommendations of Hunter and Schmidt (1990) and Hedges and Olkin (1985), we also calculated the estimate of the true correlation (rho). To calculate an estimate of rho for each analysis, we corrected each effect size for attenuation due to unreliability in trust and in the other variable. In the infrequent cases where reliability statistics were not reported by a study, we followed the common practice of substituting the mean reliability of the sample of studies. In addition to estimates of overall correlation, we calculated a homogeneity statistic, Q, for each analysis. A significant Q (which has a chi-square distribution) indicates that the effect sizes are not homogeneous. We conducted categorical moderator analyses, examining whether referent of trust and operational definition accounted for heterogeneity (i.e., whether the primary relationships differ on the basis of these categories). If a categorical moderator fully fits the data, the between-class effect (Q b ) will be significant whereas the within-class effect (Q w ) will be nonsignificant. Results After we applied the criteria for inclusion described above, the analysis included a total of 106 independent samples (k) with 27,103 individuals (N). Studies included in the analysis are marked with an asterisk in the References section. Many of the samples included data for more than one relationship. Primary Relationships With Hypothesized Outcomes and Correlates Trust in leadership appears to have had a significant relationship with each of the outcomes, as indicated by uncorrected correlations whose 95% confidence intervals did not include zero (see Table 1). For work behaviors and outcomes, trust had a relationship with each of the types of OCB: altruism (r.19), civic virtue (r.11), conscientiousness (r.22), courtesy (r.22), and sportsmanship (r.20). Trust had a relatively small but significant relationship with job performance (r.16). Trust in leadership demonstrated a substantial relationship with attitudinal variables. It had the strongest relationships with job satisfaction (r.51) and organizational commitment (r.49). Trust also showed sizable relationships with turnover intentions (r.40), belief in information provided by the leader (r.35), and commitment to decisions (r.24). Last, trust was highly related to the correlates, satisfaction with leader (r.73) and LMX (r.69). An examination of the correlations across variables and the corresponding confidence intervals provides insight into the relative magnitude of the relationship of trust with different outcomes (Hypothesis 1b). As predicted, the data clearly indicate that trust had the largest relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Also as expected, the mean correlations with the OCBs altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, and sportsmanship all slightly exceeded the mean correlation with job perfor- Table 1 Results of Primary Meta-Analysis: Hypothesized Outcomes and Correlates of Trust in Leadership Variable k N r 95% CI r c Q Outcomes Job performance 21 5, to ** OCB Altruism 12 3, to ** OCB Civic virtue 9 3, to ** OCB Conscientiousness 6 2, to ** OCB Courtesy 7 3, to ** OCB Sportsmanship 9 3, to ** Intent to quit 17 3, to ** Organizational commitment 40 9, to ** Job satisfaction 34 10, to ** Belief in information 7 1, to.40 a Decision commitment 5 1, to Correlates Satisfaction with leader 13 3, to ** Leader member exchange 8 1, to ** Note. k number of samples; N total number of individuals in the samples; r mean weighted correlation; CI confidence interval; r c estimate of mean weighted correlation corrected for attenuation; Q chi-square test for homogeneity of effect sizes; OCB organizational citizenship behavior. a The studies did not provide reliability coefficients. ** p.01.